Rajiv Sharma & Satish Chandra,JJ. Both the present appeals have been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the different judgments and orders dated 01.04.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur in Claim Petition No. 321/2002 (Smt. Sobha Devi & Ors. vs. Bagga Singh & Ors.), and Claim Petition No. 301/2002 (Smt. Daisy Khan & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.), where a total compensation of Rs.12,58,900/- and Rs.8,91,361/- respectively was awarded along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. The facts and circumstances of both the cases are identical as the claim arises from the common accident. Hence, both the appeals are disposed of by this consolidated judgment. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.09.2002, at about 7.20 in the morning, the deceased Sri Atama Ram and Sri Jaleem Ahmad were travelling in the Tanker No. G.J.-13T-5331. When the Tanker reached on the Hempur Railway Gate, from the opposite direction a Truck No. C.H.O.R.8277 was coming, whose driver was driving it rashly and negligently. The accident occurred between the vehicles where the deceased Sri Atama Ram and Sri Jaleel Khan died on the spot. Necessary FIR was lodged in the police station. The truck was insured by the appellant i.e. M/s. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. On the date of the accident, the policy was alive. The Tanker was insured by M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and its policy was also alive, on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,58,900/-; and a sum of Rs.8,91,361/- against the appellant-Insurance Company. Though in both the cases, the right of recovery was given to the appellant-Insurance Company to recover amount from the Truck owner, nonetheless, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeals. 4. With this background, heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and gone through the material available on the record. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased were travelling in the Tanker as gracious passenger. 6. On specific query, learned counsel admits that both the drivers were holding valid driving licence. 7. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased were travelling in the Tanker as gracious passenger. 6. On specific query, learned counsel admits that both the drivers were holding valid driving licence. 7. From the record, it appears that both the deceased were travelling in the Tanker as unauthorized passengers and this is the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There was no permit to ply the Tanker. No fitness certificate was produced. 8. Regarding the compensation, there is no dispute as the income of each deceased was taken into consideration. The multiplier was rightly applied. Out of the total income, 1/3rd was deducted for the personal purposes. Funeral charges and consortium etc., were also given. 9. In the circumstances mentioned above, the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal appear reasonable. Hence, no interference is required by this Court in the orders passed by the Tribunal specially when the right of recovery is given to the appellant-Insurance Company. Thus, nothing survives in the present appeals. When it is so, then we decline to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal. 10. The registry of this Court is directed to transmit the amount/record, if any, deposited in this Court to the concerned Tribunal, within a period of one month. The appellant-Insurance Company is also directed to deposit the full/remaining amount with the Tribunal, if not already deposited, within a period of one month. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the same within a period of three months thereafter, in terms of the award. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellants-Insurance Company are hereby dismissed. _____________